If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The UN is working to eliminate free speech on a global scale, and you're refighting FT Sumpter? Really?

That's a bit dramatic, isn't it?

So, instead, I should post on a website my horror at the UN's attempts to install a global government and subjugate the people of all nations and the simple act of that post will make a monumental difference. -snicker-

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

So, instead, I should post on a website my horror at the UN's attempts to install a global government and subjugate the people of all nations and the simple act of that post will make a monumental difference. -snicker-

Let me put it another way: It's absurdly beside the point. There is a real threat to the free flow of information globally, due to the UN and its enablers, and our liberties are in serious jeopardy. Your posting on the topic will probably make very little difference, but hijacking the thread into a completely pointless rehash of the Civil War will guarantee it. Nobody is stopping you from starting a Civil War thread, but it isn't the subject of this thread.

DisHonest Abe planned to invade the South, regardless of the outcome of the Sumter affair so perhaps the best lesson to take from dealing with the yankees/progressives/communists is to give no quarter.

Let me put it another way: It's absurdly beside the point. There is a real threat to the free flow of information globally, due to the UN and its enablers, and our liberties are in serious jeopardy. Your posting on the topic will probably make very little difference, but hijacking the thread into a completely pointless rehash of the Civil War will guarantee it. Nobody is stopping you from starting a Civil War thread, but it isn't the subject of this thread.

If you'll slowly read through the thread, from the beginning, especially post #14, you'll find that the events leading up to, and especially following, the war between the Confederacy and the US Federal Government is quite applicable to the topic.

Now, I must repectfully suggest that it is you who has hijacked the tread by attempting to severely limit the discussion to your narrow range.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

The United nations seems to be morphing into something altogether different than its original intent. Originally, it was thought to be a forum of sorts, where countries could hash out their differences without declaring war and killing each other.

But now it wants to become a governing body. The United Nations is no longer content with its role as a meeting place for Kings. Now, it would like to become King itself, and enable itself to pass laws which all members are compelled to obey.

If it succeeds, it will then feel empowered to pass provisions for punishing those who do not obey the laws it has passed. And that punishment would most likely be in the form of taxes. So, it wants to pass laws restricting use of the internet, monitor the efficacy of its laws through taxes, and provide for monetary punishment of any offenders.

We should lock the doors of The U.N. building now, before the building itself comes to life and achieves self awareness.

In the middle of the night at a U.N. conference in Dubai, the presiding chairman of the International Telecommunication Union conference surveyed the assembled countries to see whether there was interest in having greater involvement in the U.N. governing the Internet. A majority of countries gave their approval.

With a sufficient majority supporting the U.N. becoming more active in controlling the Internet, the chairman put forth a resolution. >>> The resolution was supported by Cuba, Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia >>>

"While it is our understanding that the resolutions made at the WCIT are non-binding, the Secretary-General might treat them as binding, which effectively creates a dangerous mandate for the ITU >>>

Given the shady nature of the middle-of-the-night introduction of the resolution, it's unclear how ITU conference will proceed.